Actor Channing Tatum suffered a ruptured ear drum on the set of new movie Foxcatcher after encouraging co-star Mark Ruffalo to "be a man" and slap him as hard as he could. Tatum portrays real-life U.S. Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz opposite Ruffalo, who plays his brother and fellow gold medallist Dave Schultz, and one confrontational scene involved The Avengers star lashing out at the 34 year old.
The Magic Mike hunk urged Ruffalo to hit him harder after his initial attempts failed to hit the spot - but he quickly regretted his words.
Ruffalo explains, "There's a moment where I slap him and I came in and slapped him. And he said, 'C'mon man, I'm trying to act here. What is that? Come on! Be a man! Hit me!'
"So I walked out and I came back in and I clopped (sic) him so hard across the head, but I hit his ear... I broke his ear drum! And (director) Bennett Miller yelled, 'Harder!'"
But Tatum wasn't the only one left nursing a painful injury on set - Ruffalo, who plays angry superhero The Hulk in The Avengers movies, adds, "His arm is literally the size of my torso. I play The Hulk in the (Avengers) movie, and he is The Hulk!
"He hit me so hard one day (wrestling for the film), I felt like someone literally dropped a piano on me. I almost dropped to the ground, but I couldn't, we were shooting."
And Ruffalo admits he is still suffering from the wrestling move: "(Tatum's burst eardrum) healed, but my neck hasn't."
Despite the onset injuries, the Oscar nominee is a big fan of Tatum.
He concludes, "We are brothers. That guy, I love. We went through the most amazing process together; he's amazing in the film."

You wouldn't necessarily expect a film starring Channing Tatum and Steve Carell to be an Oscar contender, but Foxcatcher is a horse of a different color. It received strong reviews earlier this year at the Cannes Film Festival, and we're starting to see why. Tatum and Carell both appear to be giving frighteningly good performances here—and yes, we are impressed by that glass mirror headbutt. Take a look at the latest trailer:
Directed by Bennett Miller, the film also stars Mark Ruffalo and Sienna Miller. Foxcatcher will hit theatres November 14, 2014.
Follow @Hollywood_com Follow @shannonmhouston
//

Lions Gate via Everett Collection
When we last left our heroes, they had conquered all opponents in the 74th Annual Hunger Games, returned home to their newly refurbished living quarters in District 12, and fallen haplessly to the cannibalism of PTSD. And now we're back! Hitching our wagons once again to laconic Katniss Everdeen and her sweet-natured, just-for-the-camera boyfriend Peeta Mellark as they gear up for a second go at the Capitol's killing fields.
But hold your horses — there's a good hour and a half before we step back into the arena. However, the time spent with Katniss and Peeta before the announcement that they'll be competing again for the ceremonial Quarter Quell does not drag. In fact, it's got some of the film franchise's most interesting commentary about celebrity, reality television, and the media so far, well outweighing the merit of The Hunger Games' satire on the subject matter by having Katniss struggle with her responsibilities as Panem's idol. Does she abide by the command of status quo, delighting in the public's applause for her and keeping them complacently saturated with her smiles and curtsies? Or does Katniss hold three fingers high in opposition to the machine into which she has been thrown? It's a quarrel that the real Jennifer Lawrence would handle with a castigation of the media and a joke about sandwiches, or something... but her stakes are, admittedly, much lower. Harvey Weinstein isn't threatening to kill her secret boyfriend.
Through this chapter, Katniss also grapples with a more personal warfare: her devotion to Gale (despite her inability to commit to the idea of love) and her family, her complicated, moralistic affection for Peeta, her remorse over losing Rue, and her agonizing desire to flee the eye of the public and the Capitol. Oftentimes, Katniss' depression and guilty conscience transcends the bounds of sappy. Her soap opera scenes with a soot-covered Gale really push the limits, saved if only by the undeniable grace and charisma of star Lawrence at every step along the way of this film. So it's sappy, but never too sappy.
In fact, Catching Fire is a masterpiece of pushing limits as far as they'll extend before the point of diminishing returns. Director Francis Lawrence maintains an ambiance that lends to emotional investment but never imposes too much realism as to drip into territories of grit. All of Catching Fire lives in a dreamlike state, a stark contrast to Hunger Games' guttural, grimacing quality that robbed it of the life force Suzanne Collins pumped into her first novel.
Once we get to the thunderdome, our engines are effectively revved for the "fun part." Katniss, Peeta, and their array of allies and enemies traverse a nightmare course that seems perfectly suited for a videogame spin-off. At this point, we've spent just enough time with the secondary characters to grow a bit fond of them — deliberately obnoxious Finnick, jarringly provocative Johanna, offbeat geeks Beedee and Wiress — but not quite enough to dissolve the mystery surrounding any of them or their true intentions (which become more and more enigmatic as the film progresses). We only need adhere to Katniss and Peeta once tossed in the pit of doom that is the 75th Hunger Games arena, but finding real characters in the other tributes makes for a far more fun round of extreme manhunt.
But Catching Fire doesn't vie for anything particularly grand. It entertains and engages, having fun with and anchoring weight to its characters and circumstances, but stays within the expected confines of what a Hunger Games movie can be. It's a good one, but without shooting for succinctly interesting or surprising work with Katniss and her relationships or taking a stab at anything but the obvious in terms of sending up the militant tyrannical autocracy, it never even closes in on the possibility of being a great one.
3.5/5
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//

Nobody knows what Quentin Tarantino's next movie will be. Based on conflicting interviews he's given since the release of his Spaghetti Southern Django Unchained, it doesn't even seem like Tarantino knows. He told Total Film that he envisioned Django and Inglourious Basterds as two parts of a trilogy, and that the third installment, possibly called Killer Crow would be about African-American soldiers fighting during World War II. On the other hand, he told a French publication that his next film would be "'smaller' than Django Unchained and more in the vein of Jackie Brown." If you ask me, the latter idea is probably the best choice he could make right now.
Don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed Django Unchained. Along with Inglorious Basterds, Django displays a thrilling ability to find catharsis in unresolved historical trauma through genre tropes and slick, stylized violence. Alfred Hitchcock would have appreciated each film for being a "slice of cake rather than a slice of life." Both demonstrate a fantastical belief, however hopelessly naive, that cinema can offer resolution where real life cannot. We wish someone had been able to riddle Adolf Hitler with bullets rather than what really happened: him taking his own life on his own terms. Better yet, how great would it have been if a Jewish American soldier had done the deed? Django, likewise, taps into the idea that American slaveowners were due a greater comeuppance than they ever really got. With both of these films, Tarantino has performed a kind of pop culture exorcism.
So why, for the first time really in Tarantino's work, do we get a whiff of formula at the end of Django Unchained? Perhaps it's because, like any exorcism, pop culture or otherwise, it's a movie that depends upon shock for its effect. And up till Basterds and Django, his career had never relied as heavily on shock for shock's sake. Moments like the "adrenaline to the heart" scene from Pulp Fiction or Michael Madsen's ear-slicing set to "Stuck in the Middle With You" from Reservoir Dogs were startling jolts, yes, but integrated as natural outgrowths of the story situations and, more importantly, the characters' own personalities.
Unlike those films, shock is built in to the very concept of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. And it's hard not to think about what historical atrocity Tarantino might take on next in this style. He's already tackled the Holocaust and slavery. Why not make a blood-soaked reverse Western about Native Americans fighting against the white man? Or Chinese rebels fighting against the Japanese invasion of World War II? (Part of me secretly hopes that Tarantino will just make an outright sequel to Basterds in which Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine leads a daring mission that preemptively ends the war in the Pacific theater.) To me anyway, the fact that I've thought along those lines shows how Basterds and Django are driven as much by concept as they are by story. And that's new for Tarantino. His previous films were driven first and foremost by their characters and the situations they'd create for themselves or be thrust into as if by some divine, unseen force. You could say Basterds is Tarantino's "Holocaust movie," or Django is his "slavery movie." It's harder to sum up with one conceptual keyword what kind of movies Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and the Kill Bill duology are.
That's why I'm heartened by the idea that Tarantino may go back to the Jackie Brown well for his next movie. His 1997 blaxploitation homage is perhaps his least seen but most mature effort. If he takes the following four lessons from it, I think he'll end up with an even better movie. MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
AGAIN, MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
1. Keep It More Focused on Character…and Less on Concept
Jackie Brown is the closest thing Tarantino's ever produced to a "character study." It's about the budding relationship between a middle-aged flight attendant (Pam Grier's title character) and a tough but lonely bail bondsman (Robert Forster, never better). They're both faded individuals, left behind by life and looking for a big score to get them out of their doldrums. It's the best romance he's ever depicted, and its ending comes as a gut-punch. Contrast that with the relationship between Django (Jamie Foxx) and his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). That's just pure, unadulterated marital bliss...that happens to be marred by the fact they are slaves who are sold and separated. But if it weren't for external circumstances, they would be a truly dynamic duo, an unstoppable force. It also means there isn't much subtlety in their relationship. In Jackie Brown on the other hand, the relationship between Forster and Grier is complicated not so much by external factors as by their own inner flaws. Character drives their evolution, and the story.
2. Don’t Be Afraid to Edit.
Django Unchained is a 165-minute movie, and it feels like it. There are a couple separate moments in the last half-hour that could serve as natural endpoints. But the movie keeps going. Harvey Weinstein even considered the idea of dividing it into two movies, with the break point occurring right when Leonardo DiCaprio's Calvin Candie is introduced. At 151 minutes, Jackie Brown is also a long movie. But it earns its screentime because the film is ultimately about the slow internal transformation of its characters. It doesn't add twists for the sake of twists and tack on a couple more endings even after its primary antagonist is killed.
3. Keep the Stakes Clear.
The stakes are incredibly stark in Jackie Brown. Both Forster and Grier want to make a better life for themselves. And to do that they need money. So they go after money. And by illegal means. Django Unchained seems to have pretty clear stakes too. The title character wants to be reunited with his wife and free her from slavery. Unfortunately, there are a number of narrative tangents along the way that take Django away from that objective, tangents that feel more like delaying tactics until we get to the story proper. They don't feel truly earned. If Weinstein had split up the movie into a Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, the first installment would have concerned itself primarily with Django and King Schultz' (Christoph Waltz) search for the Brittle brothers. That's a storyline that takes up about an hour of screentime as it is and has almost nothing to do with establishing an urgency to find Django's wife. It turns the movie into a picaresque. To say nothing of Tarantino's own onscreen appearance as an unscrupulous mining boss near the end of the film, after the dispatch of its primary villain.
4. Have a strong female lead.
Tarantino's usually created incredibly strong female characters for his movies. But Washington's Broomhilda is reduced to screaming terror much of the time she's onscreen. That's a token gesture on Tarantino's part to establish the horror of slavery — he shows her punished by being trapped in an underground hotbox, brutally whipped, and ostensibly prostituted — but it clashes against the hyperbolic Spaghetti Western tone that pervades the rest of the movie. Django himself becomes a fast-drawing sharpshooter practically as soon as he's released from a chain-gang of slaves. Why couldn't Broomhilda have been shown to be as formidable? Jackie Brown is not only the title character, she's a force of nature, even if she's been beaten down by life in her own, admittedly far less horrific, way.
Do you agree that it's time for Tarantino to take his career in a different direction? And does the prospect of a movie more in the vein of Jackie Brown make you as happy as it makes me?
Follow Christian Blauvelt on Twitter @Ctblauvelt
[Photo Credits: Miramax, John Phillips/Getty Images]
More:
In Honor of 'Django Unchained': The 20 Greatest Spaghetti Westerns Ever Made
Tarantino's 'Django Unchained' Fact or Fiction: Mandingo Fighting, Bounty Hunters, and More
Tarantino Revive-O-Meter: 9 Actors (And 1 Composer) Who Got a QT Career Assist
You Might Also Like:
100 Hottest Women of the Century: Do You Agree?
9 Most Insane Celebrity Baby Bumps

David Mitchell's novel Cloud Atlas consists of six stories set in various periods between 1850 and a time far into Earth's post-apocalyptic future. Each segment lives on its own the previous first person account picked up and read by a character in its successor creating connective tissue between each moment in time. The various stories remain intact for Tom Tykwer's (Run Lola Run) Lana Wachowski's and Andy Wachowski's (The Matrix) film adaptation which debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival. The massive change comes from the interweaving of the book's parts into one three-hour saga — a move that elevates the material and transforms Cloud Atlas in to a work of epic proportions.
Don't be turned off by the runtime — Cloud Atlas moves at lightning pace as it cuts back and forth between its various threads: an American notary sailing the Pacific; a budding musician tasked with transcribing the hummings of an accomplished 1930's composer; a '70s-era investigatory journalist who uncovers a nefarious plot tied to the local nuclear power plant; a book publisher in 2012 who goes on the run from gangsters only to be incarcerated in a nursing home; Sonmi~451 a clone in Neo Seoul who takes on the oppressive government that enslaves her; and a primitive human from the future who teams with one of the few remaining technologically-advanced Earthlings in order to survive. Dense but so was the unfamiliar world of The Matrix. Cloud Atlas has more moving parts than the Wachowskis' seminal sci-fi flick but with additional ambition to boot. Every second is a sight to behold.
The members of the directing trio are known for their visual prowess but Cloud Atlas is a movie about juxtaposition. The art of editing is normally a seamless one — unless someone is really into the craft the cutting of a film is rarely a post-viewing talking point — but Cloud Atlas turns the editor into one of the cast members an obvious player who ties the film together with brilliant cross-cutting and overlapping dialogue. Timothy Cavendish the elderly publisher could be musing on his need to escape and the film will wander to the events of Sonmi~451 or the tortured music apprentice Robert Frobisher also feeling the impulse to run. The details of each world seep into one another but the real joy comes from watching each carefully selected scene fall into place. You never feel lost in Cloud Atlas even when Tykwer and the Wachowskis have infused three action sequences — a gritty car chase in the '70s a kinetic chase through Neo Seoul and a foot race through the forests of future millennia — into one extended set piece. This is a unified film with distinct parts echoing the themes of human interconnectivity.
The biggest treat is watching Cloud Atlas' ensemble tackle the diverse array of characters sprinkled into the stories. No film in recent memory has afforded a cast this type of opportunity yet another form of juxtaposition that wows. Within a few seconds Tom Hanks will go from near-neanderthal to British gangster to wily 19th century doctor. Halle Berry Hugh Grant Jim Sturgess Jim Broadbent Ben Whishaw Hugo Weaving and Susan Sarandon play the same game taking on roles of different sexes races and the like. (Weaving as an evil nurse returning to his Priscilla Queen of the Desert cross-dressing roots is mind-blowing.) The cast's dedication to inhabiting their roles on every level helps us quickly understand the worlds. We know it's Halle Berry behind the fair skinned wife of the lunatic composer but she's never playing Halle Berry. Even when the actors are playing variations on themselves they're glowing with the film's overall epic feel. Jim Broadbent's wickedly funny modern segment a Tykwer creation that packs a particularly German sense of humor is on a smaller scale than the rest of the film but the actor never dials it down. Every story character and scene in Cloud Atlas commits to a style. That diversity keeps the swirling maelstrom of a movie in check.
Cloud Atlas poses big questions without losing track of its human element the characters at the heart of each story. A slower moment or two may have helped the Wachowskis' and Tykwer's film to hit a powerful emotional chord but the finished product still proves mainstream movies can ask questions while laying over explosive action scenes. This year there won't be a bigger movie in terms of scope in terms of ideas and in terms of heart than Cloud Atlas.
="font-style:>

It was the trickle of pee heard around the world. Cannes attendees were aghast and/or amused an infamous scene from The Paperboy that shows Nicole Kidman urinating on Zac Efron; this is apparently a great salve for jellyfish burns which were covering our Ken Doll-like protagonist. (In fact the term protagonist should be used very loosely for Efron's character Jack who is mostly acted upon than active throughout.)
Lurid! Sexy! Perverse! Trashy! Whether or not it's actually effective is overshadowed by all the hubbub that's attached itself to the movie for better or worse. In fact the movie is all of these things — but that's actually not a compliment. What could have become somethingmemorable is jaw-droppingly bad (when it's not hilarious). Director Lee Daniels uses a few different visual styles throughout from a stark black and white palette for a crime scene recreation at the beginning to a '70s porno aesthetic that oscillates between psychedelic and straight-up sweaty with an emphasis on Efron's tighty-whiteys. This only enhances the sloppiness of the script which uses lines like narrator/housekeeper/nanny Anita's (Macy Gray) "You ain't tired enough to be retired " to conjure up the down-home wisdom of the South. Despite Gray's musical talents she is not a good choice for a narrator or an actor for that matter. In a way — insofar as they're perhaps the only female characters given a chunk of screen time — her foil is Charlotte Bless Nicole Kidman's character. Anita is the mother figure who wears as we see in an early scene control-top pantyhose whereas Charlotte is all clam diggers and Barbie doll make-up. Or as Anita puts it "an oversexed Barbie doll."
The slapdash plot is that Jack's older brother Ward (Matthew McConaughey) comes back to town with his colleague Yardley (David Oyelowo) to investigate the case of a death row criminal named Hillary Van Wetter. Yardley is black and British which seems to confuse many of the people he meets in this backwoods town. Hillary (John Cusack) hidden under a mop of greasy black hair) is a slack-jawed yokel who could care less if he's going to be killed for a crime he might or might not have committed. He is way more interested in his bride-to-be Charlotte who has fallen in love with him through letters — this is her thing apparently writing letters and falling in love with inmates — and has rushed to help Ward and Yardley free her man. In the meantime we're subjected to at least one simulated sex scene that will haunt your dreams forever. Besides Hillary's shortcomings as a character that could rustle up any sort of empathy the case itself is so boring it begs the question why a respected journalist would be interested enough to pursue it.
The rest of the movie is filled with longing an attempt to place any the story in some sort of social context via class and race even more Zac Efron's underwear sexual violence alligator innards swamp people in comically ramshackle homes and a glimpse of one glistening McConaughey 'tock. Harmony Korine called and he wants his Gummo back.
It's probably tantalizing for this cast to take on "serious" "edgy" work by an Oscar-nominated director. Cusack ditched his boombox blasting "In Your Eyes" long ago and Efron's been trying to shed his squeaky clean image for so long that he finally dropped a condom on the red carpet for The Lorax so we'd know he's not smooth like a Ken doll despite how he was filmed by Daniels. On the other hand Nicole Kidman has been making interesting and varied career choices for years so it's confounding why she'd be interested in a one-dimensional character like Charlotte. McConaughey's on a roll and like the rest of the cast he's got plenty of interesting projects worth watching so this probably won't slow him down. Even Daniels is already shooting a new film The Butler as we can see from Oprah's dazzling Instagram feed. It's as if they all want to put The Paperboy behind them as soon as possible. It's hard to blame them.

There's an allure to imperfection. With his latest drama Lawless director John Hillcoat taps directly into the side of human nature that draws us to it. Hillcoat finds it in Prohibition history a time when the regulations of alcohol consumption were subverted by most of the population; He finds it in the rural landscapes of Virginia: dingy raw and mesmerizing. And most importantly he finds it in his main character Jack Bondurant (Shia LaBeouf) the scrappy third brother of a moonshining family who is desperate to prove his worth. Jack forcefully injects himself into the family business only to discover there's an underbelly to the underbelly. Lawless is a beautiful film that's violent as hell striking in a way only unfiltered Americana could be.
Acting as the driver for his two outlaw brothers Forrest (Tom Hardy) and Howard (Jason Clarke) isn't enough for Jack. He's enticed by the power of the gangster figure and entranced by what moonshine money can buy. So like any fledgling entrepreneur Jack takes matters into his own hands. Recruiting crippled family friend/distillery mastermind Cricket (Dane DeHaan) the young whippersnapper sets out to brew his own batch sell it to top dog Floyd Banner and make the family rich. The plan works — but it puts the Bondurant boys in over their heads with a new threat: the corrupt law enforcers of Chicago.
Unlike many stories of crime life Lawless isn't about escalation. The movie drifts back and forth leisurely popping in moments like the beats of a great TV episode. One second the Bondurants could be talking shop with their female shopkeep Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain). The next Forrest is beating the bloody pulp out of a cop blackmailing their operation. The plot isn't thick; Hillcoat and screenwriter Nick Cave preferring to bask in the landscapes the quiet moments the haunting terror that comes with a life on the other side of the tracks. A feature film doesn't offer enough time for Lawless to build — it recalls cinema-level TV currently playing on outlets like HBO and AMC that have truly spoiled us — but what the duo accomplish is engrossing.
Accompanying the glowing visuals and Cave's knockout workout on the music side (a toe-tapping mix of spirituals bluegrass and the writer/musician's spine-tingling violin) are muted performances from some of Hollywood's rising stars. Despite LaBeouf's off-screen antics he lights up Lawless and nails the in-deep whippersnapper. His playful relationship with a local religious girl (Mia Wasikowska) solidifies him as a leading man but like everything in the movie you want more. Tom Hardy is one of the few performers who can "uurrr" and "mmmnerm" his way through a scene and come out on top. His greatest sparring partner isn't a hulking thug but Chastain who brings out the heart of the impenetrable beast. The real gem of Lawless is Guy Pearce as the Bondurant trio's biggest threat. Shaved eyebrows pristine city clothes and a temper like a rabid wolverine Pearce's Charlie Rakes is the most frightening villain of 2012. He viciously chews up every moment he's on screen. That's even before he starts drawing blood.
Lawless is the perfect movie for the late August haze — not quite the Oscary prestige picture or the summertime shoot-'em-up. It's drama that has its moonshine and swigs it too. Just don't drink too much.
="font-style:>

Channing Tatum is in talks to join Steve Carell in the Bennett Miller-directed drama Foxcatcher.
Tatum would play Dave Schultz, an Olympic wrestler who in 1996 was shot and killed by John du Pont (Carell), of THE du Pont family.
Miller is currently receiving raves for his behind-the-camera work on Moneyball, out now. Tatum, meanwhile, has one of the busiest upcoming schedules around, most notably including the semi-autobiographical Magic Mike.
Source: LA Times
Click on the image below to see more photos of Channing Tatum!

The first and most important thing you should know about Paramount Pictures’ Thor is that it’s not a laughably corny comic book adaptation. Though you might find it hokey to hear a bunch of muscled heroes talk like British royalty while walking around the American Southwest in LARP garb director Kenneth Branagh has condensed vast Marvel mythology to make an accessible straightforward fantasy epic. Like most films of its ilk I’ve got some issues with its internal logic aesthetic and dialogue but the flaws didn’t keep me from having fun with this extra dimensional adventure.
Taking notes from fellow Avenger Iron Man the story begins with an enthralling event that takes place in a remote desert but quickly jumps back in time to tell the prologue which introduces the audience to the shining kingdom of Asgard and its various champions. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) son of Odin is heir to the throne but is an arrogant overeager and ill-tempered rogue whose aggressive antics threaten a shaky truce between his people and the frost giants of Jotunheim one of the universe’s many realms. Odin (played with aristocratic boldness by Anthony Hopkins) enraged by his son’s blatant disregard of his orders to forgo an assault on their enemies after they attempt to reclaim a powerful artifact banishes the boy to a life among the mortals of Earth leaving Asgard defenseless against the treachery of Loki his mischievous “other son” who’s always felt inferior to Thor. Powerless and confused the disgraced Prince finds unlikely allies in a trio of scientists (Natalie Portman Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings) who help him reclaim his former glory and defend our world from total destruction.
Individually the make-up visual effects CGI production design and art direction are all wondrous to behold but when fused together to create larger-than-life set pieces and action sequences the collaborative result is often unharmonious. I’m not knocking the 3D presentation; unlike 2010’s genre counterpart Clash of the Titans the filmmakers had plenty of time to perfect the third dimension and there are only a few moments that make the decision to convert look like it was a bad one. It’s the unavoidable overload of visual trickery that’s to blame for the frost giants’ icy weaponized constructs and other hybrids of the production looking noticeably artificial. Though there’s some imagery to nitpick the same can’t be said of Thor’s thunderous sound design which is amped with enough wattage to power The Avengers’ headquarters for a century.
Chock full of nods to the comics the screenplay is both a strength and weakness for the film. The story is well sequenced giving the audience enough time between action scenes to grasp the characters motivations and the plot but there are tangential narrative threads that disrupt the focus of the film. Chief amongst them is the frost giants’ fore mentioned relic which is given lots of attention in the first act but has little effect on the outcome. In addition I felt that S.H.I.E.L.D. was nearly irrelevant this time around; other than introducing Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye the secret security faction just gets in the way of the movie’s momentum.
While most of the comedy crashes and burns there are a few laughs to be found in the film. Most come from star Hemsworth’s charismatic portrayal of the God of Thunder. He plays up the stranger-in-a-strange-land aspect of the story with his cavalier but charming attitude and by breaking all rules of diner etiquette in a particularly funny scene with the scientists whose respective roles as love interest (Portman) friendly father figure (Skarsgaard) and POV character (Dennings) are ripped right out of a screenwriters handbook.
Though he handles the humorous moments without a problem Hemsworth struggles with some of the more dramatic scenes in the movie; the result of over-acting and too much time spent on the Australian soap opera Home and Away. Luckily he’s surrounded by a stellar supporting cast that fills the void. Most impressive is Tom Hiddleston who gives a truly humanistic performance as the jealous Loki. His arc steeped in Shakespearean tragedy (like Thor’s) drums up genuine sympathy that one rarely has for a comic book movie villain.
My grievances with the technical aspects of the production aside Branagh has succeeded in further exploring the Marvel Universe with a film that works both as a standalone superhero flick and as the next chapter in the story of The Avengers. Thor is very much a comic book film and doesn’t hide from the reputation that its predecessors have given the sub-genre or the tropes that define it. Balanced pretty evenly between “serious” and “silly ” its scope is large enough to please fans well versed in the source material but its tone is light enough to make it a mainstream hit.